Green Room

Second Look At Electoral College Reform?

posted at 3:32 pm on December 17, 2012 by

When polls tightened after the first presidential debate, you know, the one for which Barack Obama didn’t bother showing up, there was a lot of talk amongst the left, and it spilled over onto media outlets, about how antiquated the Electoral College was, and why don’t we just do away with it once and for all and go with popular vote. It’s a horrible idea, of course, but are there tweaks to the way states award Electoral College votes that would more accurately represent where Americans are at, politically? The GOP is starting to think so.

Underreported in all the bad news the last two presidential cycles is the fact that Repulicans have been gradually and methodically increasing their numbers in state houses, including full control of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Reid Wilson in the National Journal today explains how Republicans are contemplating using those new majorities to more level the Electoral College playing field by changing their system from winner-take-all to awarding them by Congressional districts.

Any such movement would bring about conflict like we just saw in Lansing, Michigan, except tenfold. But after being labeled by the left as racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist, lying, greedy, murderous and crooked, I’m not sure being called a cheater for changing the system concerns me much.

The best example I can give why to support the plan?

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


Repeal the 17th Amendment first.

LoganSix on December 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM

This isn’t electoral college reform, but states making their rules about apportionment, which they’ve been doing now for over 220 years.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Any such movement would bring about conflict like we just saw in Lansing, Michigan, except tenfold.

Duane, I’m not so sure. It’s hard to stir up fervor against a rules change. Especially one that is reasonable (proportional assignment of electoral votes).

Makes sense to do this well before 2016, because Dems will try and find some judge to overturn it.

commodore on December 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM

The map tells the tale. I’m willing to put all options on the table.

Democrats are concentrated into densely populated urban areas, which makes it very easy to mobilize and turnout, which they have done to great effect. They also stuff ballot boxes. We don’t need to cheat, but we need to limit their ability to do and exploit any partisan advantage that we can within the rules. If that means carving up their districts on the state level in purplish-blue states and/or awarding EV’s by district, I’m all for it.

The Count on December 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM

if the people utterly despise you and what you stand for, you obviously need to cheat to win.

sesquipedalian on December 17, 2012 at 4:23 PM

So Nebraska cheated when it went to its system? Maine cheated? You’re genuinely delusional, you know that?

Athanasius on December 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Oh, and by the way–millions of people despise Obama and everything he stands for, so I guess that means he cheated, too? Oh, wait…

Athanasius on December 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM

The one thing we must not do is go to the National Popular Vote. The districts serve as a firewall, both against recounts and against the reach of voter fraud. Fraud in Chicago can take away the votes of Illinois voters, but it can’t change the counts in NJ. In fact, going district-by-district might actually limit the reach of fraud further.

Meanwhile, someone must knock a bunch of judges upside the head until the understand that when you have more votes than voters in a district, fraud has occurred.

njcommuter on December 17, 2012 at 11:10 PM